ITT

what does Sup Forums think of the term "sold-out"? what do you think it means for a musician?

also post artists you believe have sold out, others try to justify the means

pic related

>>>/reddit/

bump

The idea of "selling out" is a pretty good example of survivor-ship bias in my opinion. The standard definition, as I understand it, is when an artist changes their sound past some fuzzy threshold such that they become more accessible to a wider audience. The reason I think it's a survivor-ship bias is twofold. First, for every artist who changes their sound to something more palatable and subsequently makes it "big" there's dozens, hundreds, maybe even thousands, who do the same without any difference on how popular they are. Not all changes result in popularity, and not all widely appealing changes result in popularity. The sheer number of pop artists with very niche exposure demonstrates this. You can do all the right things to be popular but still not make it past the point where you play to crowds of a couple dozen people. Second, popularity is by its nature predicated on the ability to appeal widely in at least some fashion. This means that any artist who becomes popular has to do at least one thing that makes some sufficientlylarge number of people like them. If by coincidence they started doing that one weird trick after they had started making music instead of right at the beginning of their endeavors then they get labeled a sell out. An artist who starts off with an appealing formula, sticks with it, and by chance becomes a household name is not labeled a sell out.

My primary objection to the term is that it ascribes a motive in situations where it is usually impossible to know what the motive is. There are obviously tons of counterexamples; the kind where a band gets a new manager or producer who convinces the band to make changes to make it big. But it's rare that those situations are documented clearly and publicly. Unless interviews with the artist or people very close to them reveal otherwise, it's probably safe to assume that rather than selling out they changed for creative reasons (as artists of all kinds are wont to do).

these guys definitely did

Pop music is commercial by nature so the idea of most pop artists "selling out" is a non-starter, because they had no credibility to lose anyway.

I think it's stupid. Even if it were a thing, a lot of the time it's impossible when someone has truly sold out and when they simply wanted to pursue something that was also friendlier to the public, so most of the usage will be off-base and mostly substantiated by speculation.
And if we go under the definition of "compromising your morals for money" or "artistic integrity" then I don't give a fuck. I'm not musicians' fucking mother or fairy godmother, I'm a music enthusiast. As long as the music is good I couldn't give less of a fuck about the motivations of the guy who made it.

It means the band got popular at its shittiest

To me selling out is:

>becoming a corporate product advertising whore before you even "made it".
>selling out hard to shit like american idol, reality tv shows, IE Steven Tyler

That album was recorded very well

When you make music for the money first, and put making a good album/song second.

Marliyn Manson got better when he "sold out" though.

Huh?

Modern Marilyn Manson is better because he's got nothing to prove.

He's not relevant anymore and he knows it, it's great.

But modern Marilyn Manson is boring and forgettable.

>boring and forgettable.

No, he's not a tryhard or edgelord, and it's fantastic. The public image of Manson is gone, and it's all for the better.

Why the fuck are people discussing Marilyn Manson on Sup Forums? Where are this board's standards these days?

>and it's fantastic
>and it's all for the better.

No, its just boring and forgettable.

Generally I find it to be a dismissal for when an artist deviates from someone's preconceived notions and often arbitrary standards about what said artist's ethics supposedly are or were. Fans want their favorite artists to act accordingly and sometimes feel dejected, rejected, or "betrayed" when they have other career interests in mind. If an artist doesn't think or feel exactly the same way about everything at 30 as they did when they were 20, then it's "selling out" rather than a product of a natural aging process. If an artist ever alters an opinion or business model someone will call them a sellout, but it's usually bullshit.

This would seem reasonable were it not for the fact that it's (in most instances) completely immeasurable and all down to speculation. Unless an artist expressly states it, I don't know for sure if that was their motive. Perhaps they make the music they adore and it just happens to be popular too. Also, suppose an artist said from the beginning that it was about the money first and the music second. Would it be selling out if they were sticking to that principle?

Nah the pale emperor is his 3rd best album

By following the logic of what selling-out is, you can only do so personally but not as an artist. This is how artists sell out, by thinking they can abstract themselves as some other entity that isn't them, it does not work that way and it's a delusion conjured to excuse hypocrisy. Rob a fucking bank as your artistic persona, see how life imitates art.

Maybe delusional is too harsh, i just don't agree with it though.